Smoking and Risk of Urolithiasis: Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BackgroundEarlier studies have warned about the effects of smoking on urolithiasis. Some studies have deemed that smoking has a promoting effect on urolithiasis, whereas others have considered that no inevitable association exists between the two. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ling Yue (Author), Qiaofeng Pai (Author), Xiaolin Wu (Author), Jinghua Zhang (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Frontiers Media S.A., 2022-03-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_df3399a632b24608bd5ca73844c16f28
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Ling Yue  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Qiaofeng Pai  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Xiaolin Wu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Jinghua Zhang  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Smoking and Risk of Urolithiasis: Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies 
260 |b Frontiers Media S.A.,   |c 2022-03-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 2296-2565 
500 |a 10.3389/fpubh.2022.816756 
520 |a BackgroundEarlier studies have warned about the effects of smoking on urolithiasis. Some studies have deemed that smoking has a promoting effect on urolithiasis, whereas others have considered that no inevitable association exists between the two. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate whether smoking is associated with urolithiasis risk.MethodsTo identify publications from related observational studies, we performed a search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until October 1, 2021. According to the heterogeneity, random-effect model was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsFive articles were included in the meta-analysis, representing data for 20,402 subjects, of which 1,758 (8.62%) had urolithiasis as defined according to the criteria. Three articles are concerned with analysis between ex-smokers and non-smokers, in which a significant difference was observed (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.48-2.01). Our comparison of current smokers with non-smokers in another meta-analysis of three articles revealed no significant difference between them (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.94-1.23). Finally, we separated subjects into ever-smokers and never-smokers and found a significant difference between the two groups in the analysis of three articles (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.17-1.47). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the current results.ConclusionCombined evidence from observational studies demonstrates a significant relation between smoking and urolithiasis. The trend of elevated urolithiasis risk from smoking was found in ever-smokers vs. never-smokers. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a urolithiasis 
690 |a smoking 
690 |a health 
690 |a meta-analysis 
690 |a observational 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Frontiers in Public Health, Vol 10 (2022) 
787 0 |n https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.816756/full 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2296-2565 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/df3399a632b24608bd5ca73844c16f28  |z Connect to this object online.